DIP54 : revamp of Phobos tuple types

[Dicebot]

On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 13:41:07 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 11:59:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 11:50:08 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> This misunderstanding arose because the name of the construct 
>>> is misleading.
>>
>> Can explain this a bit? What makes one miss distinction 
>> between language term and library type? (Hint: latter is 
>> denoted by CamelCase ;))
>
> Language exists by itself, library feature is composed from 
> language features and, as it happens often, they can interact 
> in unexpected/unforseen/broken way.
>
> Take typedef and Typedef for example (bearophile often posts 
> shortcommings of the latter). Irrespective of whether each of 
> them is good/bad, this is a clear example of differences 
> between language feature and library feature.
>
> Personally I am upset when I get some weird Phobos structure 
> which simulates language feature, rathen then having feature in 
> the language in first place.

I completely agree with that and would absolutely love to see 
tuples of all forms as first class language citizens re-designed 
from scratch with more consistency in mind (even made one 
proposal back then). But it is simply not an available options 
right now. I am not trying to create anything good with this DIP 
- just something minimally practical to work with.

But that does not answer the question how one may confuse library 
type with matching language feature - I don't remember anyone 
confusing the very same typedef / Typedef pair, for example.